As a Taoist I cannot imagine life without atheists. Atheists have taught me much of what I know, mainly, how not to take anything, anyone, or any idea for face value. If it wasn't for atheists there would be no remnants of anarchy in the modern day, which have given me a better understanding of many ancient teachings.

It is clear that all teachings started verbally amongst a group. They were shared freely with the masses, and the masses took the stories for face value when they were allegorical, and everyone only remembers the parts that are useful to their own paradigm. TO be without paradigm is what anarchy, philosophy and faith are about. Thank you atheists for showing me the middle way.

If we suppose that God exists then it is clear to me that atheists exist and thrive largely because He does not make his existence more obvious.

Seeing the good things that atheists have indeed contributed to modern society (in particular, I think of the contributions of the secular societies in England that fought for women's rights among other things), I do indeed see this as a reason for thanking the fact that God does NOT make His existence more obvious.

One logical implication of this, is that the common religious belief that things in the world would be better if more people believed in God, is a load of rot. There are a lot more important things than whether one believes that God exists. Not the least of these is what is the nature of this God that one does or does not believe in. More important than whether one believes that God exists or not is whether one believes in the value of life and love, which ties directly into the first question and it means that those who do believe in a God who values life and love have a more important commonality than theism, with those who do not believe in a God that does not value life and love.

Can I imagine life without atheists?

Yes very easily. One only has to read about the dark ages. It is precisely because I can so easily imagine life without atheists that I give thanks to God for atheists. But I think the real problem here is the failure to understand that humanity united in their thinking is very likely to be a hell on earth. We need diveristy in human thought as desperately as we need diversity in our genetic code. I think that our survival depends on both for very similar reasons.

Better brace for impact then. We already have laws against "hate speech".

Interesting. So you think there is a connection here? Is your atheism about hate? Well that is not any sort of atheism that I would give any thanks for, any more than I would give thanks for racism or bigotry against atheists.

"Hate speech" laws are incredibly general and can be exploited to silence any significantly controversial point of view. Also, though it doesn't matter, the UN is passing a law to make speech against islam illegal (though it's the UN. Nobody cares). This stuff is starting to become more common.

I don't think atheism is necessarily rooted in the ambiguity of God, the concept or the being, whichever you choose to believe, if either.

I have heard, and it seems very likely, that Atheism, not the sort that revolves around spite for religion, but the sort that seeks to live fearlessly and cherish every moment is the purest form of reverence and faith. I choose to believe this.

Taoism spells it out nice and simply, that you can have faith without illusion, and act without expectation, create without desire.

The Gypsies have a dogma, to paraphrase "Love without Danger is as empty as Life without Freedom" it is easy to see that all 4 ideas are inseparable. Life meaning "human life" of course, and "Love" meaning "devotion", Danger being anything that causes fear or doubt, and "Freedom" being "the ability to be spontaneous"

These are all inseparable concepts. As are the concepts of consciousness and what you are conscious of.

Religious people seek godlike consciousness, but Secular people seek to be conscious of reality. What if the two things are the same and the process of seeking is what keeps us from finding? Maybe it is not the seeking, but the manner in which we look.

Religious people seek godlike consciousness, but Secular people seek to be conscious of reality.

Uh...what? So far as I know, most religious people aren't seeking a "godlike consciousness." That's true in western religions anyway, I can't really comment on what people might be seeking in other religions.

Most christians/muslims/jews would probably say that they are seeking to be "conscious of reality," just like the secularly-minded. The difference is that they religious and secular reach different conclusions about reality.

What if the two things are the same and the process of seeking is what keeps us from finding? Maybe it is not the seeking, but the manner in which we look.

What if the two things are the same and the process of seeking is what keeps us from finding? Maybe it is not the seeking, but the manner in which we look.

A blacksmith creates a sword to protect, while another creates a sword to kill. They both did the same work, and sought to produce quality, but while one seeks to preserve another seeks to destroy. So are the paths of theism and atheism, and thus is your answer.

I'm not a Taoist, you are right Ishmael, but I do have great respect for the teachings of Zhuangzi. Just as a student of Christ would call himself a Christian, not necessarily to be identified as such but to give credit where it is due. I call myself a Taoist, to give what little credit I have to give, where it's due. I have never met a Taoist and would never claim to be "THE" Taoist that you envision a Taoist being, that probably has more to do with who you are than what I am. As an artist, as a volunteer, as a student I see spontaneous goodness all around being repressed, enslaved and strip mined by tyranny.

as for the sword metaphor
Some smiths made swords as a works of art; some as a religious devotion and the swords where religious symbols; another made swords only to be used to kill oneself if dishonored; another made swords for royalty, nobles, champions or title bearers as symbols of power or title; another makes swords to sell to collectors... none of these swords were made to taste blood except one and the two you mentioned. In reality both atheists and believers make swords for many reasons, most of them just to wave around and strike awe into the hearts of those easily distracted.

I think who wields the sword and why effects more than what it was made for.

As a Taoist I cannot imagine life without atheists. Atheists have taught me much of what I know, mainly, how not to take anything, anyone, or any idea for face value. If it wasn't for atheists there would be no remnants of anarchy in the modern day, which have given me a better understanding of many ancient teachings.
It is clear that all teachings started verbally amongst a group. They were shared freely with the masses, and the masses took the stories for face value when they were allegorical, and everyone only remembers the parts that are useful to their own paradigm.

there's your "face value"

TO be without paradigm is what anarchy, philosophy and faith are about. Thank you atheists for showing me the middle way.

its not clear how something can be anti-paradigm without also involving issues of paradigm ... even less so since tools such as "philosophy" and "faith" are what are used to elaborate on what a paradigm entails[/u]

I'm not a Taoist, you are right Ishmael, but I do have great respect for the teachings of Zhuangzi. Just as a student of Christ would call himself a Christian, not necessarily to be identified as such but to give credit where it is due. I call myself a Taoist, to give what little credit I have to give, where it's due. I have never met a Taoist and would never claim to be "THE" Taoist that you envision a Taoist being, that probably has more to do with who you are than what I am. As an artist, as a volunteer, as a student I see spontaneous goodness all around being repressed, enslaved and strip mined by tyranny.

In other words, you are far more of a Taoist than a lot of these jokers can really be said to be atheists. What is even more humorous is that a lot of them even think that this makes them a scientist. What do you say to a guy who says that they are an atheist and then argue with you about the nature of God. An atheist is not a God-hater, that is just a theist with a grudge. An atheist is someone who does not believe that any God exists and therefore they would hardly hold onto a theology about what God must be.

The really intellegent atheist will actually tend to call themselves agnostic because although there are a lot of ideas of God which they think are nonsensical and therefore surely do not exist they realize that there very well could be some sort of God, however unlikely, that does exist.

By the way, my father is a Taoist. Well at least I would call him a Taoist, even if he would not, because He wrote his own interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

In other words, you are far more of a Taoist than a lot of these jokers can really be said to be atheists. What is even more humorous is that a lot of them even think that this makes them a scientist. What do you say to a guy who says that they are an atheist and then argue with you about the nature of God. An atheist is not a God-hater, that is just a theist with a grudge. An atheist is someone who does not believe that any God exists and therefore they would hardly hold onto a theology about what God must be.

Just because I am not a unicorn does not mean I cannot argue for the existence of unicorns, or what form they exist in. A true scientist, or logician, or enlightened person, can easily argue the "what ifs" to determine the most logical possibility if something were to be. Have your beliefs, but if you preach them they had damn well better make logical sense.

The really intellegent atheist will actually tend to call themselves agnostic because although there are a lot of ideas of God which they think are nonsensical and therefore surely do not exist they realize that there very well could be some sort of God, however unlikely, that does exist.

Logically, it's implausible. This is what atheism is; or perhaps should be. Everything exists on a spectrum, and well reasoned atheists basically see God as existing on the "implausible" side of said spectrum. This isn't to say zealots don't exist, but blanket applying that logic produces an inaccurate result.

This is the type of fallacy that results in many problems, and one of the fallacies that has ensured continuation of an intellectual dark age. Labels for ideologies are dangerous for two reasons. One, they allow opposing ideologies to blanket apply fallacies. Two, they allow people to herd into those ideologies without thinking. When asked for a label, I of course use "atheism", but that's only because if I didn't someone else would for me. It's an inescapable trap that allows for blatant intellectual laziness.

In other words, you are far more of a Taoist than a lot of these jokers can really be said to be atheists. What is even more humorous is that a lot of them even think that this makes them a scientist. What do you say to a guy who says that they are an atheist and then argue with you about the nature of God. An atheist is not a God-hater, that is just a theist with a grudge. An atheist is someone who does not believe that any God exists and therefore they would hardly hold onto a theology about what God must be.

Just because I am not a unicorn does not mean I cannot argue for the existence of unicorns, or what form they exist in. A true scientist, or logician, or enlightened person, can easily argue the "what ifs" to determine the most logical possibility if something were to be. Have your beliefs, but if you preach them they had damn well better make logical sense.

I am having a little bit of difficult seeing the applicability of your argument here. To see what I mean, lets try a few possible conclusions that you are trying to argue for:

1)So.... Just because you are not an atheist does not mean you cannot argue for the existence of atheists, or what form they exist in.
2)So.... Just because you are not a theist does not mean you cannot argue for the existence of theists, or what form they exist in.
3)So.... Just because you are not God does not mean you cannot argue for the existence of God, or what form God exists in.
4)So.... Just because you are not a scientist does not mean you cannot argue for the existence of scientists, or what form they exist in.

Of these, only 3 seems close to making any sort of sense, but then what is it in response to? Who is saying that you have to be God in order to make conclusions about God? It is as if I said, "you have to be an apple grower to really understand apples" and you responed by arguing, "you don't have to be an apple to understand apples". Uh.... The response may be true, but it is hardly relevant.

But ok lets switch the question to unicorns since you seem to think that gives you some sort of feel for the subject. What do you say to a guy who says that there are and never were any such things as unicorns but then starts telling you that everything you have heard about unicorns is actually wrong, and that they are actually man eating carnivores? I would say that such a man is either not right in the head, or that they have some serious issues they need to deal with. LOL

Originally Posted by Darius

A true scientist, or logician, or enlightened person, can easily argue the "what ifs" to determine the most logical possibility if something were to be. Have your beliefs, but if you preach them they had damn well better make logical sense.

LOL Or what? LOL Make logical sense to who? LOL "enlightened person?" LOL You make me wonder even what your term "true scientist" is a code word for. I know what a scientist in the modern sense of the word is, and what he does when he is doing science: he sticks to explanations for the objectively observable. When he is not doing science then he just like everyone else. A logician is someone who studies logic. They can indeed examine statements about unicorns or God, but they are only concerned with the logical structure and logical relationships between those statements, and thus when they are doing what logicians do, they are not actually ever talking about unicorns or God, any more than a scientist that is doing science, would ever be talking about unicorns or God.

Ho hum... I do like science especially physics. I studied it enough. I remember that once in graduate school I mentioned to a classmate that I very much liked Scientific American, and he said he didn't because of all the biology topics, and I had to respond that I liked the biology topics. There were some really memorable articles like that study of early human migrations from the evidence of language and genetics. I also very much enjoyed my courses in symbolic logic in graduate school. This is why I find people who like to paint or paste the words "science" and "logic" on their beliefs, very amusing.

I am having a little bit of difficult seeing the applicability of your argument here. To see what I mean, lets try a few possible conclusions that you are trying to argue for

True, it probably would have been more direct to say "just because I don't believe in unicorns". Ironically my "error" is still valid logic.

But ok lets switch the question to unicorns since you seem to think that gives you some sort of feel for the subject. What do you say to a guy who says that there are and never were any such things as unicorns but then starts telling you that everything you have heard about unicorns is actually wrong, and that they are actually man eating carnivores?

He'd be just as wrong as the person saying unicorns are magical. Nice to see you flexing your bullshit muscle to confirm your beliefs. However, the above is in no way a proper extrapolation on my logic.

Dropping the unicorn metaphor (as it serves no further use), the argument typically centers around logical contradictions regarding interpretations of what God is, or his function, or his actions. My own personal interpretation of what God is perfectly logical, but the existence of this entity is still implausible.

I would have stopped here, where your ego is shining ever so bright, but then you attack my character ever so coyly.

You make me wonder even what your term "true scientist" is a code word for.

Not a code word. It's a term to differentiate an actual scientist from one that merely wears the label. Many so-called scientists are really quite stupid and unscientific even by the strictly empirical definition.

I know what a scientist in the modern sense of the word is, and what he does when he is doing science: he sticks to explanations for the objectively observable.

A scientist is a user of science (-ist: One that performs a specified action). The definition of science itself is up to some debate, but usually it's defined something like so: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Personally I like the definition of science to be "Objectivity" rather than the equivalent of "empiricism", even though the two are typically linked. With my definition a scientist would also be a logician, seeking to find more plausible explanations for that which is not yet found to be empirical. Most scientists do this in the "hypothesis" phase to create sensible hypotheses, so you can see why I like my definition better. This is what is defined in my mind when I use the word "scientist", and I jump at the chance to share my interpretation with others.

A logician is someone who studies logic. They can indeed examine statements about unicorns or God, but they are only concerned with the logical structure and logical relationships between those statements, and thus when they are doing what logicians do, they are not actually ever talking about unicorns or God, any more than a scientist that is doing science, would ever be talking about unicorns or God.

Logician: "A practitioner of a system of logic." Logician has two definitions, you blatantly ignored one to bolster your argument and bombard my ego. Shame on you. One that practices logic would indeed take to analyzing the plausibility of "God", and most likely correct contradictions or fallacies. If one uses logic often, it's very annoying when others believe in something contradictory.

Ho hum... I do like science especially physics. I studied it enough. I remember that once in graduate school I mentioned to a classmate that I very much liked Scientific American, and he said he didn't because of all the biology topics, and I had to respond that I liked the biology topics. There were some really memorable articles like that study of early human migrations from the evidence of language and genetics. I also very much enjoyed my courses in symbolic logic in graduate school. This is why I find people who like to paint or paste the words "science" and "logic" on their beliefs, very amusing.

It's even more amusing when one corrects anothers use of a word, or grammar, without properly understanding said word or grammar. Like calling an apostrophe a comma. Hopefully by now you realize your own inadequacy, and will spend some time contemplating before your response.

One can study for a lifetime, only to match the ignorance of a newborn.

True, it probably would have been more direct to say "just because I don't believe in unicorns". Ironically my "error" is still valid logic.

But ok lets switch the question to unicorns since you seem to think that gives you some sort of feel for the subject. What do you say to a guy who says that there are and never were any such things as unicorns but then starts telling you that everything you have heard about unicorns is actually wrong, and that they are actually man eating carnivores?

He'd be just as wrong as the person saying unicorns are magical. Nice to see you flexing your bullshit muscle to confirm your beliefs. However, the above is in no way a proper extrapolation on my logic.

LOL No it is simply casting my original statement into your uncorn example, to which you responded with this bullshit nonsense that you don't have to be a unicorn to "argue for the existence of unicorns, or what form they exist in." It was the inapplicability of your argument that I was speaking to and not its logic or correctness. I in fact agreed that you don't have to be unicorn to do such a thing - but there was no relevance. You turning to attack and ridicule does nothing to add anything to the main issue here.

Originally Posted by Darius

Dropping the unicorn metaphor (as it serves no further use), the argument typically centers around logical contradictions regarding interpretations of what God is, or his function, or his actions.

What argument would that be?

Originally Posted by Darius

My own personal interpretation of what God is perfectly logical, but the existence of this entity is still implausible.

I know hundreds of interpretations of God that are logical but which I consider implausible. So what are you saying here? That you only know one such interpretation or that you have a favorite perfectly logical interpretation an implausible God? That I can believe, but I do find this a bit peculiar - an amusing affectation of those who indulge in canned rhetoric.

You see I am far more interested in plausible interpretations of God and I know quite a few of those too. One such plausible interpretation is that God is a character in a fairy tale. This is in fact how I would very likely characterize your favored interpretation.

Originally Posted by Darius

You make me wonder even what your term "true scientist" is a code word for.

Not a code word. It's a term to differentiate an actual scientist from one that merely wears the label. Many so-called scientists are really quite stupid and unscientific even by the strictly empirical definition.

Ah thank you for your excellent confirmation of my suspicion - YES! this look down your nose and appoint yourself a judge of who is truly a scientist based on whether they agree with your worldview is EXACTLY what I mean by a code word.

But your fantasy aside, modern science is a well defined activity and it is those who participate in that activity which are the scientists. This activity has its own peer review process and it is that and not your judgements that are relevant, no matter how much smarter you imagine yourself to be.

Originally Posted by Darius

I know what a scientist in the modern sense of the word is, and what he does when he is doing science: he sticks to explanations for the objectively observable.

A scientist is a user of science.(-ist: One that performs a specified action).

OK, that sounds like a useful definition for a child (or anyone else) that want to call themself a scientist.

Originally Posted by Darius

The definition of science itself is up to some debate, but usually it's defined something like so: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

No it is not up to any debate. We merely have qualifications to clarify what we actually mean. There is the meaning of the word from medeival time which simply meant a systematic study and by which it was claimed that theology was "the queen of the sciences". There is that which refers to a subject at school and which largely consists of familiarizing children with the concepts and discoveries of science. There is also the topic of popular literature which attempts to explain to the lay person some of the concepts and discoveries of ongoing scientific inquiry. Both of these avoid the real languages of the sciences they talk about and so they do not really come very close to the real thing which is the peer reviewed activity of scientific inquiry and which we can find an account of in scientific journals.

Originally Posted by Darius

Personally I like the definition of science to be "Objectivity" rather than the equivalent of "empiricism", even though the two are typically linked. With my definition a scientist would also be a logician, seeking to find more plausible explanations for that which is not yet found to be empirical. Most scientists do this in the "hypothesis" phase to create sensible hypotheses, so you can see why I like my definition better. This is what is defined in my mind when I use the word "scientist", and I jump at the chance to share my interpretation with others.

Yes indeed, this does seem well suited to linking the word to the philosophical premises of your world view.

Originally Posted by Darius

A logician is someone who studies logic. They can indeed examine statements about unicorns or God, but they are only concerned with the logical structure and logical relationships between those statements, and thus when they are doing what logicians do, they are not actually ever talking about unicorns or God, any more than a scientist that is doing science, would ever be talking about unicorns or God.

Logician: "A practitioner of a system of logic." Logician has two definitions, you blatantly ignored one to bolster your argument and bombard my ego.

No I simply wasn't interested in the one that children and anyone else could use to pretentiously call themselves "logicians".

Originally Posted by Darius

Shame on you. One that practices logic would indeed take to analyzing the plausibility of "God", and most likely correct contradictions or fallacies. If one uses logic often, it's very annoying when others believe in something contradictory.

Oh yes I am sure that it is very annoying to those who have redefined logic according to an adherence to the premises of their worldview to have their BS challenged.

Originally Posted by Darius

Hopefully by now you realize your own inadequacy

Always. That's how I keep on learning. You should try it.

Originally Posted by Darius

One can study for a lifetime, only to match the ignorance of a newborn.

Ah.... out of mouth of babes... You mistook this for insult, when it is actually a profound universal truth.

My illusion of equality eh? You make it more than clear that all logic is surely not created equally.

Individual things can be compared and shown to not be equal, but the more you include in your perspective, the more equal everything becomes. Take for example the randomness in particle physics, eventually all the randomness evens out and creates relatively predictable matter and energy. The individuals choices may be hard to predict, but society's momentum is pretty constant. Do you think Politicians, Celebrities, Artists, Advertisers, the Media, are just lucky? Some of them maybe, the ones with real talent, but most of them have simply changed to suit what society wants, that is the democratic way!

We were not all made equal. Equality is an end we must work towards if we want to see it realized. It is idealized and used as a political tool. That is why Taoists did not preach but preferred poetry and songs because unless you have experienced it, you will not understand, and politicians can't easily use a poem or a song for their own ends. To understand the Tao completely you need to understand the times it was created in, much like the times that I believe we are heading towards unless we break free from the cycle.

Wow, mitch. I had given you much more credit than you were apparently worth. As much as I would love to waste hours of my time detailing every which way your ego is the size of the united states, I'm going to leave you with one correction. I would suggest you contemplate the implications carefully, but you do not seem to be capable of doing so.

One can study for a lifetime, only to match the ignorance of a newborn.

Ah.... out of mouth of babes... You mistook this for insult, when it is actually a profound universal truth.

Wow, mitch. I had given you much more credit than you were apparently worth.

LOL Neither my credit nor my worth comes from you, therefore you have given me nothing, so however you may wish to imagine it, there is nothing that you can take away from me.

Originally Posted by Darius

As much as I would love to waste hours of my time detailing every which way your ego is the size of the united states,

Oh by all means, follow your desires or you could try to be more honest about them. Your attempt to quantify an ego is very amusing. Is there a metaphysical discussion in this, do you think. Where is the ego and what does it consist of? Being a physicalist in regards to the mind-body problem I would say that the ego of a human being clearly resides within that persons skull, and could not thus be any larger than that. I would suggest that those who imagine an ego bigger than this are possibly compensating for the reality that their ego is actually smaller than usual.

Yes I realize you probably did not mean anything of this sort, if you in fact meant anything at all, but I admit that I like to take apart the trite meaningless things that people often say and to examine what is actually meant by them. I would imagine the usual meaning of giving a large quantitative measure to another person's ego is probably a comment on their exaggerated self worth. But what is an exaggerated self worth? Is high self esteem and a sense of self worth really a bad thing? I don't think so. I think it is only in comparison to others that a sense of self worth can be exaggerated. In other words, a high sense of self worth is not bad when one extends that same sense of worth to other people. IN FACT, I would say that anyone whose sense of self worth would would consider themselves worth more than even a single other person, no matter who that person is, has what I would call an exaggerated sense of self worth.

I would metaphysically compare every human being to a separate and independent universe, and see them as children (in the image) of an infinite God, infinite in potentiality as God is infinite in actuality, so I do indeed attach a VERY high measure of worth to every person including myself. But consider how I see evil as arising from desires which exceed ones regard for the well being of others and how contemptuous I am of prentensiousness. No the reality is, that to value oneself over others is to diminish ones own value, for value is a highly dynamic thing that grows through interaction - feeding and growing off each other - so that the more you value others, the greater you own value will be. No as big as you may imagine my ego to be, and for all that I am as great as an entire universe, it is impossible for me to imagine that I am greater than even single other person no matter who that person might be.

Originally Posted by Darius

I'm going to leave you with one correction.

I would suggest you contemplate the implications carefully, but you do not seem to be capable of doing so.

One can study for a lifetime, only to match the ignorance of a newborn.

Ah.... out of mouth of babes... You mistook this for insult, when it is actually a profound universal truth.

No, I didn't.

LOL Oh really? The context suggests otherwise.

Shall I contemplate the implications? The implication I see is that I am looking in a mirror and do not like what I see. But can you see what the implication of this is? It is that you also are looking in a mirror and do not like what you see.